The only way to conclusively put this debate to a rest so that supporters and non proponents of the shard concede the truth an answer one way or the
other is too agree upon the coordinate position of the Shard and then ask Nasa for the high resolution pictures of the region around the coordinate.

We both know that's not going to happen. The 'shard,' in all probability, doesn't exist and imagery would only be doubted by people who have their
hearts set upon an alien structure being denied by all the space agencies of Earth.

According to the link that nobody checked, the coordinates are Central Latitude/Longitude (deg): +0.80/358.96.

Rather than making demands of NASA, it'd make more sense to question the provenance of the image and the reputations of the characters who've been
hoaxing the conspiracy community for years. Does Hoagland get a free pass whilst NASA get the questions? Is his woeful track-record for dishonesty a
simple, trivial matter? And is the fact that he actually has a notorious agenda no matter either?

The elephant in the room for these types of conspiracy is how quickly the probable, logical explanations are shooed away in preference to the least
likely and most complex ones. So here we go again.

Explanation 1 - There is no 'shard,' it comes from a hard copy photograph that could conceivably have been damaged or doctored to appear like an
actual structure is there. There's no chain of evidence and no other copies and the source was a person who's made a living from bizarre and
frequently demolished hoaxes.

Explanation 2 - There's an alien super-structure on the moon. NASA have planned and carried out missions everywhere but the location to trick people
into believing it doesn't exist. Russian, Indian, Chinese and European space agencies have colluded to maintain the secret. It's a National Security
secret endorsed by hostile nations and even during the Cold War Soviets played along. Every single scientist involved with subsequent moon missions
has kept quiet. Although Hoagland has been wrong many times, in this case he was right. The apparatus of the Kepler Mission and similar projects
looking for proof of life in the cosmos are actually highly expensive distractions being carried out by thousands of scientists as a charade.
Generations of scientists are unable to break the silence and must enter into some type of Faustian Pact to perpetuate the lie and have never uttered
a word during pillow talk. The alien technology has either been researched and explored or it's been left there out of fear.

Now if we're all honest, it's explanation 2 that has the support in this thread isn't it? High five!

According to the link that nobody checked, the coordinates are Central Latitude/Longitude (deg): +0.80/358.96.

Can you limk again i want to look at how those coordinates were determined. This is important as it may come down to a debate on the location.

We both know that's not going to happen. The 'shard,' in all probability, doesn't exist and imagery would only be doubted by people who have their
hearts set upon an alien structure being denied by all the space agencies of Earth.

This is very misleading what you are inferring and doesnt get us closer to solving the Shard reality or non reality in a scientic manner. We need to
go about gettting to the bottom of this mystery in a scientific manner. This wil involve first debating and coming to a concensus on the coordinate
position. Then going to Nasa and asking for high detailed pictures which shouldnt be an issue because as you have been describing in previous posts
they have nothing to hide from us.

It appears to me the answer to the shard mystery is two fold. 1. Identifying a coordinate location. 2. then have Nasa provide public on request
high detailed pictures of say 10 squred kilometers around that point.

Sheesh. I linked the map here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I make the location of the "shard" to be at about 7ºW 3.5ºS.
I gave you the source for the high resolution LROC images.
Do something on your own...please. Narrow it down. Look for the image(s) you want. But the "shard" is enormous. It's something like 200 km from the
camera. It would not take a very high resolution image to find it.

edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Just some more info to help you guys.
1- Have a look how the coordinate system works. en.wikipedia.org...
2- On lroc site wms.lroc.asu.edu... Phages coordinates translate to -7 -3.5
3- Zoom in and input these coordinates..
4- enable "get footprint info on single click" action in map options
5- enable one of the footprints in layers and red squares will appear. (-) LROC NAC footprints All NAC footprints
6- click on one of red squares and a display box will appear with a high res map link
7- investigate the high res new map link

PS: I cant find anything particularly interesting on these coordinates Phage gave, but have no idea how he came with that position nor have time to
investigate further.

PS2: Be creative, put 180 on longitude and u have a whole "dark side" to explore.

Explanation: It was the Surveyer 6 link and here
is the text from that link ...

Surveyor 6 Landed 10 November 1967 in Sinus Medii (0.5°N latitude, 358.6°E longitude), almost dead center on the front side of the
moon. One of its key experiments was measuring the surface chemistry with an alpha scattering detector, which showed the landing area to be basalt,
similar to the surface measured by Surveyor 5. Surveyor 6 completed the data acquisition that the Apollo program needed and thus allowed Surveyor 7 to
be sent to a site that was of higher scientific interest.

Note I have bolded and underlined the quoted text to highlight the specifics and I am of the opinion that the slight discrepency between the text and
what Kandinsky typed .. is just a typo.

oh lol as i can see your closed minded to i never said NASA doesn't have information we may not know about
but that information wont be of any use to us... nor even if they told us will it have any impact on earth

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.